User talk:JodyB/Archive 20

80.200.246.70
That was prompt! (I'm impressed!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I only blocked through the weekend so we may not to revisit the problem on Monday. JodyBtalk 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ;-) (Thanks for that!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread
Hi Jody. I think the two weeks is fine for now; if he reacts abusively on his talk page when he learns of the block, I'll back you up -- drop me a line or talk page note if I'm not around -- I'd be happy to block indef. We really do not need this kind of editor here ... All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm heading for bed, but something about this Ecko1o1 smells ducky. See Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner/Archive, you can check his latest sock:  for comparison.  Brucejenner is known for his graphic and disgusting racist trolling and his constant disruption at Race and Intelligence and articles related to mixed-race marriages.  You may want to file this one under SPI and request a check user.  I'd do it myself, but I was just heading off to sleep.  -- Jayron  32  05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind on that. Brucejenner is against same-sex marriages, not mixed race marriages.  It's so hard to keep track of who these idiots hate these days.  Oh well.  I guess I really do need some sleep.  -- Jayron  32  05:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another admin has increased it to indefinite which is fine and probably a good idea. His unblock request is almost as bad as his original edits so he's now talked himself into an indef. He just doesn't get it. JodyBtalk 09:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Add new support center
Hello. Can you help me?

I want add new customer support center for mac apps. Page, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture.

I use the services of this center support and are pleased with their work. So, I want to create a page about them in the dictionary Wikipedia. Feature of the center is that it serves the mac apps on iMac computers. That is not very common today.

Last week, I've created a page on the YMG under another account, but you blocked it.

Now I am writing you from my personal account. Advise please, how do I properly create a page about this support center?

Thank you for help.

Best regards, Julia. --195.177.73.248 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to help but the article must be about a notable subject. Read N for a good understand of what we mean. Then you should read RS to understand how to properly source the article. You must have these sources which serve to prove or verify that the company is a notable business. Just because a business exists does not mean it should have an article here. Gather your sources and let me know when you have read the pages I mentioned and when you are ready to begin. I will help you put together the article. Please contact me before you actually write it. JodyBtalk 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by 75.57.132.30, 68.77.20.157, 71.226.179.184, 75.56.58.201, 70.131.127.5
This AT&T ISP ATI troll keeps on vandalising the Nvidia GeForce 400 section of the Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units article. Request a permanent ban on his ISP and protection on this page. It's the same person, the IPs all trace back to Illinois. And this is not the first time, even earlier you can see the same IP ranges vandalising the GeForce 200 and 300 sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.112.81 (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the recent editing has been done by ip editors so page protection would block all editors. Some of the ips you mention are dynamic which means a range block would be required and I am not inclined to do that because of potentially wide spread damage from such a block. I will watch the page and try and isolate the problem more specifically, then something can be done. It may take a little time. JodyBtalk 11:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Danke
Thanks for getting rid of System76. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia protect...
...not very well thought out. Please unprotect the article immediately per my comments here. many thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

blacklisting of aetherometry.com
re: your addition of aetherometry.com ... the regex on the entry is incorrect. You added it as  ... it should be. I would fix it myself, but I'm not on a secure system, so not using my admin account at the moment. --- Barek (talk) - 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixing it now! JodyBtalk 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Since I referenced you, Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent AfD closure
You only deleted one of two nominated articles at: Articles for deletion/County Road 337 (Florida) (3rd nomination).  Imzadi  1979   →  02:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Thanks for letting me know. JodyBtalk 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Floralis Generica
Sure! --Bleff (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect! JodyBtalk 02:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Range block
Just to prewarn you, I'll be coming to bug you if he shows up outside of the range you blocked :P— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 08:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. It's a very small range and easily expandable. JodyBtalk 11:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jasepl
This editor now canvasses other editors to do the reverts on his behalf, see []. Stepopen (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. Is there a consensus yet? I know you were discussing it on the talk page. JodyBtalk 12:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some consensus against your addition of the flight. It does appear that some inappropriate canvassing has been done. I would warn you that you are really pushing the envelope here. I am locking the page and you guys can post a notice for additional opinions. JodyBtalk 12:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If a consensus emerges I have no problem in conceding. But just a few hours ago there was no consensus as in the past few weeks several editors added this info to the article, and several other editors removed this info. Of course if one side canvasses, no true consensus can really emerge, and that bothers me (plus the racists attacks and incivility). Stepopen (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing block comment
Can you please explain this block? An unblock request came in to unblock-en-l and I have no idea what to say because there's no reason for the block specified. Thanks, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. An ip editor was enagaged in frequent vandalism across a small range of ip addresses. User: Ryūlóng brought to WP:ANI and I enacted a limited rangeblock. The ANI comment from Ryūlóng is here. I have no particular problem in an unblock if you wish to proceed. The present block ends in about three weeks. Sorry for the failure to specify. JodyBtalk 18:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)re
 * I released the block on that range. JodyBtalk 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

121.54.32.128/27 rangeblock
Can you be more specific as to why 121.54.32.128/27 has been rangeblocked? You seem to have forgotten to have placed a block rationale for that one, and there are a couple of unblock-en-l inquiries with regards to that range, but we don't know exactly why that range was blocked. I sent you an email a few days ago, but I received no replies. Please respond. –MuZemike 05:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I didn't receive the email. It seems to be working as of yesterday. Please see the explanation above this message. JodyBtalk 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and released the block. It was to expire at the end of the month. I looked in unblock-en-l and didn't see a problem showing there so it may have already been handled. Anyway, it's been released. JodyBtalk 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Screwedupessay.jpg
Can you clarify why an image is a candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page? I'll make my decision as soon as you let me know. JodyBtalk 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Essay (ese) is a fellow Hispanic. I dentifying the guy in the photo as a screwed up fellow Hispanic by using the photo name Screwedupessay.jpg - seem like an attack on the guy in the photo. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I am not sure that would be a proper use of the attack page designator. Anyway, it has been taken care of by someone else because it is not on my list. JodyBtalk 16:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I despair
Really I do, I have been the subject of a sustained personal attack and every edit I make is reverted. I have not edit warred, despite the provocation of my every edit being reverted. I try and use the talk page for discussion. I walk away from a confrontation and an edit war because it was lame and that doesn't matter, you issue me with a warning anyway. What did I actually do wrong? I didn't break 3RR and I walked away - and I clearly stated this was not worth edit warring over.

If I had been that uncivil towards Imalbornoz I'd have been looking at a block. He didn't apologise, he made it worse by dragging up the arbcom case, made further personal attacks and tried to justify them. And he gets away with a warning, I do nothing and you warn me. Come on?

Civility policy specifically states not to bring up past disputes, Richard Keatinge has repeatedly and continuously flung the arbcom case in my face - you do nothing about warning him for his incivility. Every time their behaviour is called into attention, they obscure the discussion with long tracts of text and that dissuades people from reading then nothing much really happens. They fling enough accusations around and it obscures their bad behaviour. Did you warn me just because enough mud stuck?

Just take 5 minutes and have a wander around the Falklands topics, there I'm a respected editor and people come to me for advice and help. I'm often asked for a neutral opinion to settle disputes or to cool tempers. The dispute between Britain and Argentina gets just about as heated as it can get and yet there I can edit without any rancour - so much so that at AN/I an Argentine editor actually spoke in my defence. Justin talk 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. My comments on your talk page, and not yours only, were to prevent a problem from growing into a blockable offense. I make no judgment on your value to the larger project but simply remind you that you should use caution when editing a page under sanctions (the page, not you). 3RR is a bright line. The edit waring policy may be invoked anytime someone is editing in such a fashion as to cause disruption. I believe my comments reflect that you were not there yet.
 * Civility is another issue. I have made no comment about civility yet but am watching for signs of trouble. I am aware of your concerns and will bear them in mind. Please understand that I am in no hurry to block or sanction anyone. Productive editing is so much easier for everyone. Just be aware of the rules and all will be just fine. JodyBtalk 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Except there is a problem here. I have a thick skin but I'm fed up of having that arbcom case flung back in my face.  I was out of order but I've apologised for it, I haven't repeated the behaviour that lead to me being sanctioned.  We have a section in the civility policy that specifically deals with not harping on about the past.  Both Richard and Imalbornoz have violated that repeatedly and have got away with it, again and again.  Their conduct violates WP:CIVIL and nothing results from it.
 * You mention 3RR. Well I didn't cross that bright line.  I actually said this is a stupid lame dispute and I'll walk away from it.  But Imalbornoz didn't, he still went ahead, edit warred again and followed that up with uncivil comments.  At the moment you've treated us equally and I find it difficult to justify that, when one editor walks away from edit warring, the other doesn't and you warn both.  Really this just is not equitable treatment.  I never once complained about taking my medicine so to speak but I really find this difficult to accept.  Its like I'm walking around with a target on my back, saying kick me.  Its like anyone can be uncivil to me but even when I don't break the rules I can expect sanctions.  Really this is Kafkaesque.  Justin talk 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of points and then I will be away for a few hours. First, your connection to the ARBCOM case is not an issue here. The case deals with the page generally and puts no special sanctions on you beyond what you have already served. Second, I issued a warning - no penalties at all. If in fact you have walked away from a "stupid lame dispute" then there will be no problem, right? If I were in your shoes I might feel similarly but do not allow your past sanctions cause you to be overwrought over my message. JodyBtalk 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well sanctions or warnings on wikipedia are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Given that I had long since disengaged whilst Imalbornoz peristed, could you explain to me the logic that lead to your warning me?  In addition, Richard also persisted with comments of themselves uncivil and he has received no comment.  I am utterly mystified why you're not commenting on the incivility.  The underlying cause has not been tackled so really I'm at a loss to see how your warnings are preventative?  Really I'm bewildered and confused.  Justin talk 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question - "sanctions or warnings on wikipedia are supposed to be preventative." I am looking at the entire case but chose to deal with EW first. Your disagreement has been noted. JodyBtalk 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my persistence is irritating you but really I'm struggling to understand here. Could you perhaps explain why you chose not to deal with the incivility?  My issue with that decision is that by not confronting it, further examples of incivility will not be prevented.  Its not as if it was a one off it was repeated multiple times on the talk page, then again at ANI.  Justin talk 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I feel a lot happier. Regard, Justin talk 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of Gibraltarians (this is discouraging)
Justin A. Kuntz has just made this edit:. I'll make a comment on this, trying to be very careful so that I don't make any personal attacks and the edit can be evaluated on its own:
 * 1) Justin has just reverted (for the fourth time) an uncontroversial correction (the number of Gibraltarians living in Gibraltar is not controversial, as far as I know)
 * 2) the correction was sourced: a statistical publication by the Government of Gibraltar itself where it "literally" says that there are 23,907 Gibraltarians in page 2
 * 3) Justin's edit is not supported by the source (if you look at it, you won't be able to find any reference to "30,000 Gibraltarians" or anything similar), but even so he keeps the cite (!)
 * 4) Justin has reverted this not once but FOUR TIMES to corrections from THREE DIFFERENT EDITORS in 3 or 4 days
 * 5) Of course, Justin probably does not want the edit to mislead people, but this has been discussed and explained many times so that he MUST know by now that his text is WRONG
 * 6) Justin kind of justifies his edit saying that, even though the source does not say there are 30,000 Gibraltarians, the wikilink will explain what the reality is. I find this rationale very complicated, but even so... the wikilink explains nothing of the sort! Please take a look at the wikilinkGibraltarians and check that it only talks about % of nationalities, so that nobody has any means to know that Gibraltarians living in Gib are around 24,000 and not 30,000
 * 7) Please take a look at the edit summary: "rs wikilink per previous consensus text, slightly amended to link directly to population statistics" What consensus? What "slight" amendment???

And he has done this even after all the discussion in the noticeboard, all the warnings and your own comments!! If you look at the history of the article, you will find that this kind of behaviour is very usual in Justin. I can't find any explanation for it (at least without commenting on his competence as an editor).

Actually, I don't really care too much if there are 30,000 or 24,000 Gibraltarians (I don't know what difference it makes, except in WP's accuracy). I can only say that this is extremely unhelpful for rational discussion in Gibraltar related articles, and I don't know what else to do.

Could you please take a look and do something? Thanks!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On the run right now and out of town - that's way I suggested 24 hours to prep for the RFC. But I will look. Thanks JodyBtalk 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I see that Imalbornoz is adopting his usual practise of lobbying admins to sanction me or intervene in content discussions rather than engaging in talk page discussions to convince people of the merit of his argument. This is not the first time he has done this, in fact he typically follows my contributions to lobby after I ask for advice see User talk:Atama for example.  I allude to this behaviour in Talk:Gibraltar, he is compelled to lobby at every opportunity to get his way in talk page discussions and rakes up the arbcom dispute to muddy the waters when challenged about his conduct.
 * The edit was made over 24 hrs ago, I didn't just do it. To put this into perspective, I restored the existing consensus text per WP:BRD to a state preceding the outbreak of edit warring and explained my revert in talk inviting discussion see .  My edit is explained in more detail than is needed and I made an extra effort with the wikilink to address his concerns.  He continues with the bad faith accusation about my behaviour, there is nothing wrong with what I've done.  None of this is contrary to any talk page discussion, in fact its all fully in line with the content discussion, comments about lede fixation and the explanation why this was never needed in the first place.  I'm sorry about this but per the discretionary sanctions, you have warned Imalbornoz to cease bad faiths attacks, he has just repeated them here.  I have to ask that you consider acting upon the discretionary sanctions that apply where if after receiving a warning an editor persists in bad faith conduct.  Justin talk 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, bringing a matter to the attention of an admin who is helping watch the article is in no way uncivil. Now I have looked at the edit and the attached source. In my judgment the statement that almost 30,000 Gibraltarians live there is factually incorrect. I encourage you to revert yourself immediately. The source says only 23,000 or so live there. The link makes clear that Gibraltarians are British and then offers percentages. The reader should not have to do calculations in a second article to determine inaccuracy of the first. Regardless of what consensus may have existed errors must be corrected. Please do this and lets move to the previous questions concerning the battle and subsequent occupation. Thanks. JodyBtalk 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would rather depend on the way you do it really doesn't it? The statement "he MUST know by now that his text is WRONG" screams bad faith to me - it actually isn't wrong and its based on a semantic argument about who the real Gibraltarians are.  Please tell me what was wrong with discussing it on the talk page when an admin is watching?  As opposed to making a comment on a talk page, ironically complaining of a lack of discussion from the person who wouldn't discuss it with anyone preferring instead to indulge in a number of bad faith attacks?  The population of Gibraltar is nearly 30,000, of whom a subset are native born but the noun Gibraltarian can refer to both resident and native born - as I explained.  It really isn't an error and I don't think the lede is the place to go into population statistics.  I will make an amendment to demonstrate good faith but I hope in future you're going to do something about this and listent to both comments before making a decision.  Justin talk 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust this is satisfactory ? Justin talk 13:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC) ADD: Final version after tweaks . Justin talk 14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears satisfactory. Thank you. JodyBtalk 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW see Gibraltarian status. Justin talk 12:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview Requested
Per WP:COATRACK, I consider the details of the Gibraltar capture in San Roque, Cadiz to be excessive. I've removed a lot of surplus detail see. If you consider it the wrong thing to do I would not object to you reverting but suggest you add it to your watch list otherwise. Justin talk 10:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a great amount of information there so your change may be acceptable. Of course there may be some discussion and negotiation about the particulars but I do not see a need to revert your changes. If you haven't done so go ahead and explain your reasoning on the talk page of the article. I have added it to my watchlist. JodyBtalk 12:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Help, please
Please take a look at this edit by Justin:. I don't know what to make of his references to "rewriting" History in order to support a particular POV, or to avoiding the "embarrassment" (?) of Spain's sovereignty claim. Also, I think that the way it deals with 1,200 families leaving their homes after suffering rapes, plundering and desecration of almost all their churches (is really " voluntary departure" the right way to describe it?)... is very offensive.

Also, please, look at his longer proposal. He keeps saying things that are not supported by his sources: for example, he should know (because he has been told so) that the source he provides does not support that "the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished" (it says that only one was hanged and other ones that were found in the street *after* the main atrocities were committed were *simply* -not severely- punished) and even so he sticks to his text. Finally, as a justification for his text, he keeps referring to avoid "modern irredentist claims" -even as he says that he won't justify his proposal (?).

Finally, please take a look at this edit: "So basically you're creating a WP:COATRACK for the usual nationalist nonsense to disrupt the article" or this one: "he (Imalbornoz) has an utter inability to separate opinion from fact"

Maybe I am biased, that's why I am asking you, but I honestly have the impression that he keeps ignoring sources, he keeps saying that sources say things that they don't, he keeps going around the same questions even when they have been res.ponded with sources over and over, and he keeps making offensive comments and mixing them with references to "Spanish nationalists".

I know that Justin has already served his ban -but it's hard to forget what took him there (the same references to "Spanish nationalists" and "irredentist claims"). And all this after he has gone through the topic ban, several warnings from yourself and others, and even as he knows that he is being watched (by you)!

I think it will be very difficult to move on to any constructive consensus if this goes on. Please, can you tell me if I have a very wrong view of what is going on? Can you do something to stop it? Thank you very much and sorry for dragging you into this exasperating discussion. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. The RFC is now active and I will be asking the projects and such to come by and offer criticisms and suggestions. Let's see how that goes. I think what we are seeing is rather common when nationalism enters the picture. It's hard to be unboased. I think all of us bring our own biases to the table its just that some may be better at controlling them than others. I have no stake in this matter as I am halfway around the world and am about as American as you can be. At this point, his suggestions are on the talk page which is fine. I know you may disagree with him but he is not, at this point disrupting the encyclopedia. If you question his sources just continue to hold his feet to the fire and make him verify everything. That is the way we work out disputes. JodyBtalk 11:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did wonder how you would respond when I saw this late last night. As I said previously I don't think its helpful when an editor makes false allegations to an admin seeking sanctions against another editor; and the allegations made are demonstrably false.  I would hope that if this continues you take appropriate action.
 * I have included extensive quotes in my references that allow any editor to verify the claims made. As I said I've faith in the community to consider the content suggestions on merit alone. I do hope Imalbornoz will not repeat his previous conduct of deterring outside comment with walls of text if and when discussion takes a direction he doesn't like.
 * Seeing as the spectre of nationalism has been raised I think it is fair and relevant to bring to your attention that I am half-Spanish on my mother's side. My grandfather and mother were refugees from Franco's Spain in the 1930s.  Frequently I have been labelled as "anti-Spanish", an allegation I used to laugh at because of my background.  It was made so often, that when I pointed out my background it was later asserted to be a false claim to deflect criticism - despite the fact I'd been translating Spanish documents for Falklands topics for about 2 years.
 * BTW did you check the link about Gibraltarian status and residency? Justin talk 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the link and commented on it. I am ready for this back and forth to stop now. You guys need to write an article not come crying to me at every supposed act of disrespect. There is ample work to be done. Let's do it. No reply is necessary. JodyBtalk 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you comment please? Justin talk 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was thinking of the changes at another article you asked about. I see no immediate problem with the status article. It shows that there is a difference between a Gibraltarian and just someone who happens to live there. Anyway, I am focused on this main article for now. Thanks. JodyBtalk 13:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite, to be a resident requires Gibraltarian status, I was trying to make the point that Gibraltarian can refer to both resident and nationality. You appeared to dispute that when I pointed this out previously.  Justin talk 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What I disputed was the idea that there were almost 30,000 Gibraltarians there. A person living there may have Gibraltarian status or may not. About 23,000 were classed as Gibraltarians and the remaining roughly 7,000 were not. JodyBtalk 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand, to be a resident requires you have to have Gibraltarian status - it is not a case of either/or. As a UK citizen I can visit and stay there but I don't acquire a right to residency until I achieve Gibraltarian status.  Again Gibraltarian can refer to both resident and nationality and the survey listed a break down of residents by nationality.  I emphasised the point with the additional information on "non-residents" that take the population over 30,000.  The statement that there are 30,000 Gibraltarians is correct.  Justin talk 14:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK
as per the San Roque article, another coatrack example. Would be grateful if you added it to your watchlist. Justin talk 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions
This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)